Ashamed To Be Sikh

[Seeker9]

Liberation in what sense? Liberation in the sense of how the birth control pill is considered to have liberated the modern women. Or how a form of "self-mental-slavery" keep african-americans from truly liberating. Explain further

Oh I think you know exactly what she meant!
But to help you along......do Atheists believe in a Soul that seeks to be freed of physical bondage? If not, what is the purpose of life for an atheist? Is there one other than to reject theistic beliefs? What are the Atheist (not humanist) principles for day-to-day life and interaction with others? Is there a moral code? Keep one's nose clean and do unto others as you would have done unto yourself?

 

[Seeker9]

Its interesting to me that members of sikhism would like to more closely associate with godless religions like buddhism and jainism as opposed to religions like christianity, hinduism and islam.

I don't think that should come as any surprise if you understand how the concept of God in Sikhism differs from those religions

I believe Tejwant Singh Ji has touched on this area already and so is a discussion you could develop further

 

[findingmyway]

No quarrels just discussion but can't stay long this evening as have a very early start and still got work to do. Quarrel is such a negative word. I don't believe you're not enjoying this exchange too!!

on the contrary, ive been raising issues like these with my parents and community from the age of 6. It certainly wasn't fashionable for a 6 year old to be so questionative and if you were right i simply would have followed what my parents and community told me was true (even thought it didnt jive with my internal sense of truth and falsity). Having said that, if i was there at the guru's time i would defintly be more prone to believe in sikhism because it simple was the best available source of knowledge AT THE TIME. time change, science and logic have vastly improved and overtaken any religions positions as a "source of wisdom." So i'm not a follower as you have suggested, indeed the large majority of the world is religious so i tend to see religious people as being followers, not atheists. Most atheists come to this realisation on their own.

Actually in the UK and Australia it is not good to be religious-you are seriously looked down upon. In the environments I've lived in atheism/agnosticism are definitely the primary belief systems. I don't believe internal logic or morals have changed that much over the past 500 years. As I keep saying Sikhi is spiritual as well as practical. Spiritituality is not achievable without faith. For many faith=strength. And please don't bring in the examples of people doing things wrong in the name of faith as they are not really following the philosophy-they are twisting it. Is it wrong YES Should they be challenged YES Because of them should we say the philosophy is wrong NO. Thats like saying half they people in school misunderstand Shakespeare's comedy so he has no humour.

I am also a questioner. I questioned everything-blind faith is a ridiculous notion for me. Yet I haven't followed what my parents and community told me and am still Sikh. I went back to basics and studied for myself rather than listening to common oral traditions which as you rightly point out are not always inline with gurmat teachings. I delved into the Guru Granth Sahib and try to understand as I don't see the point of doing my nitnem each day without understanding it and following it.

You've misunderstoof alot of what I've said. My disbelief in god makes me atheist—not agnostic. Agnostics simply dont care about the question of gods existence, or simply say "you cannot prove or disprove his existence"—simply put, agnostics dont know or care if god exists. I on the other hand strongly believe god doesnt exist, and if he does, he is largely pointless. Thats the difference between atheism and agnosticism in laymens terms. I talk about nirvana and heaven at the end because im equating those ideas to the sikh idea of "returning to the creator" or w/e it is he suggested. I dont actually believe in heaven or nirvana either. I do believe in spirituality but only in a psychological sense in that it is a state of mind. For example, epilectics (people who have a history of having seizures) routinely have spiritual experiences due to their epilepsy—is that the grace of god? You can have spiritual experiences by fasting (islam) through sweat lodges (native americans) or taking drugs (everyone else lol).

Your definition of spirituality and mine are very different!!

Simple answer: Atheistic/humanistic philosophies advocate the same thing as the sikh philosophies you pointed out. You dont need to be a religious person to advocate those philosophies. Although i am an atheist I would die for your right to freedom of expression/religion/and what have you. And thats the truth—youll find that common among many atheists. Indeed, abraham lincoiln fought a war over the issue of slavery—that sounds so very familiar to the fights sikhs waged in defence of other minorities. Abraham lincoin was also an atheist.

Humanistic philosophies are not spiritual. They are only half the equation. They also do not give the same level of internal peace (I have not reached that yet btw).

You should really look into some humanistic philosophies. You dont need a god to be as happy you think you are.

Depends on your definition of happy and at peace.

And there in lies a problem for sikhs. If Guru Nanak dev ji was right and all one has to do was essentially be a good human being. (a good hindu or a good muslim) of what use is it to be sikh? Let alone hindu or muslim or any other religion. He did undermine their traditions by the way, he rejected the thread ceremony and he pointed his feet towards mecca when we as sikhs cannot reject the amrit ceremony and do not point our feet towards the guru granth sahib. Vast inconsistancies

You see inconsistencies as you have misunderstood the messages. Feet toward mecca was forbidden as the belief was that was where God resided. Guru Nanak Dev Ji proved God was everywhere. Feet not pointed towards Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a mark of respect. Thread ceremony was rejected as the thread was considered to be protection which is not physically possible. Khanda di pahaul ceremony is for those who want to make a commitment to the Sikhi way of life. It is not 100% compulsory and does not give you any extra protection/powers but is a pledge like the one you take when becoming a citizen of a country. 2 completely different theories-how can you compare!!

I dealt with the proof in an earlier post somewhere in the hard talk section of this site

That was not proof but opinion as there were good arguments the other way too from what i remember.

You also forgot in your reply to say which other sources are better....


p.s. Tejwant Ji also asked you some questions

 

[findingmyway]

Yes, he did. I dont exactly know what qualifies as enlightenment. Scientifically speaking, buddhist monks are significantly happier on average then the rest of the population around the world. They are also a godless religion, (as is jainism i think as some one else mentioned). Its interesting to me that members of sikhism would like to more closely associate with godless religions like buddhism and jainism as opposed to religions like christianity, hinduism and islam. It seems to me that this suggests that even sikhs hold the practical applications of their religion in higher regard then the actual concept of god. Otherwise surely, a religion like buddhism or jainism would seem unappealing. Hmmm i would like to talk about this more if anyone wants to pick it up with me?

Sure but not in this thread as it goes off topic!!

 

[choprakj]

Dear Friends,

Just like many of you, I was born and raised a Sikh. I have gone to Sikh Gurdwaras since an early age and sat in the sangat and absorbed the teachings of the "gurus." At an early age, I attended a large Gurdwaras California, however my family located when I was 16 to a different sate with a much smaller Gurdwara. However we still continue to attend on a regular basis, my admittance up until this day is consistence. I go every Sunday with my parents and on special occasions when there is a special Sikh holiday.

I am 23 now, and graduated last year from a very reputed university, where I Majored in Political Science and History, I also minored in Religious Studies. Currently I am in first year Law School, and these inquiried keep popping in to my head as I study Religion and Law.

I have had a profound interest in world religions nice an early age, perhaps the age of 14-15 when I started to discovered that Sikhism is not the only region. I even attend Church with a couple of my friends on several acassion and say without a doubt that the Christines were very welcoming people. I also got the opportunity of sit in several Singaguous and observer their letures. Upon entering college, I was also fortunate enough to meet several Muslim who invited me to "open mosque" days where non Muslims were welcomed and given lectured on Islamic history.

Regardless, my point for pointing out my well versed religious knowledge is to point out that, I as a Sikh, consider my self to be well versed in History and Religion. I do not want to sound condescending or an elitist, but I would consider my self more versed than 90% of the public when it comes to matters of region and history.

Now to my point.

I have a profound shame to Sikhs for the following reasons.

I wanted to type these points in greater detail, but time is limited and wanted to get something out here so dialog can begin.

1. Historical Inconsistency and Unverifiable History
From a young age, I have inquired about the stories and the lectures given in our Gurdwara. from the story of Nanak stopping a huge rock with his bare hands, to the battles fought by Gobind Singh. My first point is that despite these stories being told several hundred times, it does not make them true. I have personally visited the sight of the supposed hand print, and it does not appear to be a hand, it simply an outlined that was placed much later. Scientific evidence has confirmed this fact and there is not impact in that region of the rock. Other stories such as epic battles of Gobind Singh seem to be exaggerated by the Sikh religion, to say the least. I have researched history from this time period, and can no find any significant 3rd party evidence to confirm that such large battles did take pace. Do you not ever consider how one man can fight 5,000? With an arrow in his chest? There are several other inconsistency in stories that I hear every day in the Gurdawara, however there are too many to point out. Regardless of the fact. I would like to know, why are these stories not able to be confirmed by scientific data or other 3rd party historical account? I think this is a question that needs to be raised and discussed openly, I brought up this question to my local granthi, and his simple response was that the we know this to be true because the Gurus tell us this.

As as alluded before to my study of religion before, I know that other religions also have unverifiable history. However, I find two main difference between their region and the Sikh religion.

a. Most other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but rather "this is what we believe." This is fundamental difference that must be addressed. When ever I try to question a key fact in Sikhism, it is as if i were questioning the word the god. In fact, all Gurdwara and Sikh treat their religious stories as "fact" and do not even entertain the notion that there can be misrepresentations or logical / historical inconsistency.

b. In all other major regions, there is stories that do not match with with historical account. However, to a large degree, these religions have a vast literature and intellectual inquiries in their houses or worships about these abnormality. I was takn a back the first time I went to the mosque and there were 4 Muslims discussing the supposed site of Muhammad's first house. I have also gone to Churches where there is open dialogue between the congregation where they openly question their religion and the inconsistency. However, I do not find this in the Sikh temples. Regardless of this, how is it possible that these religions still have documented evidence and open dialog about the lack of about such things from Noha's Arch, shroud of turin, to what is in the kabah.

2. Lack of Knowledge and Desired Knowledge / Religious Text

I am sure many of you are or know someone who is baptized. Many of the things that baptized individuals part take in is to pray, in the morning and evening. Both of my grandmothers and a couple of other individuals in my family are baptized. At a young age, I would question them about what they are regurgitating as they rocked back and forth reading out of their little book. However, I never got an clear cut answer. As I got older, I would question more people about what they are reading, and why? However, till this day, I have not met a single person, including a dozen granthis, who do not have any idea about what they are regurgitating every morning and night. I will admit that majority of them know have little about about several individual lines, however, I am condifent to say that none of them have even 50% knowlege about what they are reguraduating every morinig and night.

My surprise does not come from the fact that they do not know. It comes from rather the lack of desire to know. they are perfectly content that they are doing enough to fulfill their duties as a bapsitised individual that they do not even sedire to find out. I have received such ambiguous answers as

"No one knows what it says."

"We are not meant to understand."

"We can not even grasp how sweet the words are."

Again, my problem is not with the fact that they do not know but rather:

a. A Sikh is someone who is always learning, someone who is on earth for the mere reason to learn and understand. Yet these individuals have not desire to understand what is written in the spiritual text.

b. Why is it that other religion's scared text are actually readable by anyone who picks them up? I have read a significant portion of the Bible, and majority of the Koran, and actually understand what it says in there.

c. I am not saying that all Sikhs do not know what it says in this religious text. I am sure a lot of you will attempt to point out your superior knowledge on the matter, however I would like to point out that you are in the minority and a breed of your own. Otherwise you would not be on this forum.


I Have not completed all of my objections to Sikhism, I will add and edit the about information and arguments as I have time.

Please excuse my grammatical errors and spelling. I just wanted to get this up here so a dialog can ensue and maybe I can learn something.

3. Hypocrisy in Sikhism

4. Attacks on Islam / Lack of Understanding / Denial of Similarity

5. Sikh Theory vs. Reality

Dear(sic) Singh Sahib,

You should rather be ashamed on your birth,because you seem to be fascinated by religeons other than sikhism,nothing wrong about it.
Because people like you will even forget their parents & question their mother on theie birth their fathers on theis birth ,afterall the belief system is as much come into play on the matter of parenthood as much it does when somebody questions his Lord.
You are fortunate that you are a sikh & have used this forum to vomit whatever you thought was an invention.

for your information

1. The very basis of Christianity,Judaism,Islam is that 'Arc Of Noah" & every person persuing these religions believes it.
2.In islam small wars were fought like 'Kabala" in fact they were tribal battles fought on a much smaller scale than the wars our gurus fought against huge rulers of the time.

3.Reading & understanding of bani is far more simple to understand that those verses of Bible & Kuran I hold both the holy books in high esteem .

having started this tag,please never question again with stupid & chidish logic,I have known people like you who at your age do not understand any thing in life yet sometime become judgemental on issues beyond their comprehension.

Warm Regards
kjs

 

[Caspian]

Okay, now that im done my quiz. I'm going to start addressing the issues brought up in my absences

1)

I really wouldn't rely too much on just science if I were you....according to fundamental principles of aerodynamics a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly......yet it does

- Seeker9

Long story short: the bumblebee does not violate any laws of aerodynamics. A simple google search would reveal the fact that the concept you quoted is simply a myth. I'm going to start quoting another site that dealt with this issue:

"bumblebees cannot fly according to the laws of aerodynamics, or so goes the myth. This story, often invoked by people wanting to dismiss results of scientific reasoning, seems to go back to the 1930s, to students of Ludwig Prandtl, a pioneer of aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen in Germany"

If you want to know more about the origin of said myth and the explanation for why bumblebees dont violate any laws of aerodynamics, i suggest you click on the following link: http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm

As for the standard atheist argument about no scientific proof for the existence of God or the need for a God, Atheists are also incapable of providing similar scientific proof that God does not exist...so I would suggest that view is logically pointless as well

First n foremost, the onus is not on the scientific community to provide evidence against the concept of god. Simply put, if there is no evidence "for" the concept of god, then science can safely disregard it. If the onus was always on science, imagine how convuluted the process would be. Imagine if einstein came on the scene, simply said "e=mc^2, now prove me wrong yellingsardarni" lol, it would take a much longer time to prove anything then, progress would not be made. The onus is on the person making the claim, in this case you guys. Otherwise i can similarily state "there is a teapot in interstellar space, somwhere between the earth and the moon, but it is too small to be seen by a telescope—now prove me wrong ". Do you really want to use an argument that can simultaneously justify the existance of sasquatch, the tooth fairy and santa claus? If so, by all means, i agree—god is exactly like those three.

Having said that, without using science but instead using logic (logic is a formal language, not unlike math, that can be used to verify the validity of an argument... for example, the statement "the car is either blue or not blue" is always true as there is no possibility beyond what is covered by the scope of the sentance; where as the sentance "the car is red and not red" is always false because no such possibility can exist—u can use similar laws of logic (mainly, proof by contradiction) to determine that god either doesnt exist or exists but serves no purpose). I really dont want to get into this debate though on this thread, as this has little to do with the topic lol. Perhaps another thread if anyone is game?

What is God for you and is the concept of God in other religions same as of Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi? If yes or no, can you please elaborate it from your view point?

God is a great many things for me . But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc. I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity

From a biological point of view: i believe the concept of god is a evolutionary by-product that served a useful evolutionary purpose but just like the appendix, it has lost its use over time (and sometimes, just liek the appendix, it can do harm to us ).

From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent lol.

From a common-sense point of view: the concept of god and religion in general (along with cults and conspiracy theorists) are ways in which people try to substitute actual knowledge with nonsense to make themselves feel smart... lol i could go on, onto the next topic.

Oh I think you know exactly what she meant!
But to help you along......do Atheists believe in a Soul that seeks to be freed of physical bondage? If not, what is the purpose of life for an atheist? Is there one other than to reject theistic beliefs?

I actually didnt know what she meant by liberation but thanks for the clarification. And no, atheists do not believe in souls, ghosts or other supernatural phenomena. THe purpose of life for an atheist is w/e they make it out to be. There is no wrong answer to that question as far as im concerned. Your purpose in life could range from promoting equal rights to getting drunk 24/7. Human life is objectively, from the point of view of a hypothetical god, meaningless; but from a subjective perspective, the meaning of human life is w/e you make it to be.

As a side note, they say that biological immortality is only 30-50 years away. This poses a problem to many religions. What point does a heaven and hell serve, or reincarnation for that matter, if one can live forever if one wants to? Keep in mind, there are two naturally occuring examples of biological immortality (a certain type of jelly fish and an animal known as the hydra) both of those animals pose a fundamental problem to the idea of liberation and reincarnation. I'll be willing to go more indepth into biological immortality if one wants to bring up the topic with me. But as it stand right now, we've succeeded at increasing the lifespan of certain worms by 1000 percent its only 30-50 years away folks . I look forward to seeing how sikhs will deal with biological immortality, is ur conviction in ur religion strong enough for you to reject the possibility of living forever?

What are the Atheist (not humanist) principles for day-to-day life and interaction with others? Is there a moral code? Keep one's nose clean and do unto others as you would have done unto yourself?

Are there morals? Yes there are
Is there a moral code? No there is not
Morals are relative and change depending on context, culture, etc.
Atheists dont believe in absolute moral codes (or moral laws if u will). The only laws we believe in are the laws of logic, math and science. That is not to say that atheists have no morals. We do.
However, we believe one can have morals without a god-like figure to attribute the morals to. Im reminded of euthephro's dillemma

" are morals good by the grace of god? Or are morals good because they are intrinsically good?"

If you suggest that morals are good only because god says this moral is good. Then the morals are largely arbritary. Meaning, if god willed it: he could have made murder a good moral value. It all goes according to his will, and his will is rather arbritary.

If morals are good because there is something intrinsically good about them—And thats why god chose them. Then there exists something (in this case the intrinsically good nature of morals) that is above the will of god. God cannot make an intrinsically good moral a bad one by simply willing it then.

Either which way, its a problem for the concept of god. Thats one of the reasons that we, as atheists, dont believe in god and why we believe morals are relative. Not to mention the fact that murder (the greatest sin, imo) can become totally justifiable depending on the context of the situation.

Interestingly enough, their is branch of science that occasionally deals with morals (game theory ). According to game theory the best rule is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but rather

"Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do untoyou."

I would suggest reading "The rules of the game" by Carl Sagan. Its an interesting essay from an atheist regarding morals/gametheory and famous religious morals from christ to ghandi

Actually in the UK and Australia it is not good to be religious-you are seriously looked down upon.

Yeah, in america it is quite the opposite, your looked down upon for being an atheist. I live in canada tho where no one really looks down upon anyone

Your definition of spirituality and mine are very different!!

Yes, most likely. But i dont view spirtuality as related to anything supernatural or religious. I believe an atheist can be spiritual and spiritualty in general is seperate from religiousness. Some of einsteins quotes (einsteins was an atheist himself) show a deep spiritual understanding/awe of nature and the universe

Humanistic philosophies are not spiritual. They are only half the equation. They also do not give the same level of internal peace (I have not reached that yet btw).

Most buddhist philosophies can be considered atheisitic imo. Seeing as buddhists dont believe in god right, yet they are vastly more spiritual on average then most every religious group (including sikhs). And they dont need a god to do it. So if they can do it, any atheist can—anybody, for that matter, can lol. I'm going to say buddhists are more similar to atheists/humanists in the general sense of the word then to sikhs prove me wrong

Feet toward mecca was forbidden as the belief was that was where God resided. Guru Nanak Dev Ji proved God was everywhere. Feet not pointed towards Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a mark of respect.

Yet sikhs consider the guru granth sahib to be the living embodiment of a guru right? I'm not wrong in saying that. In my opinion their is no difference between believing that a book is a guru, or a cracker is the body of christ, or that a rock is the residence of allah. I'm going to suggest that guru nanak dev ji disrespected their beliefs to illustrate a point.

Thread ceremony was rejected as the thread was considered to be protection which is not physically possible. Khanda di pahaul ceremony is for those who want to make a commitment to the Sikhi way of life.

Thats all fine and dandy as long as you acknowledge that just like the thread, there is nothing intrinsically good or pure about the 5 k's. Can we agree on that? Because keeping the hair, metal bracelet and khanda does not physically make you a better person let alone a better sikh. It is essentially just as pointless as the piece of thread (and alot harder to maintain ).

That was not proof but opinion as there were good arguments the other way too from what i remember.

You also forgot in your reply to say which other sources are better....

That thread was full of stupid arguments. One member tried to prove me wrong by suggesting the joke that 1+1=window is a valid logical argument. That thread made me very frustrated, it was like i was talking to a bunch of kids. No offence. But i fail to see ANY good counter points to my argument in that thread. By all means, look it over, and copy paste any arguments you feel were valid and I will address them. But as far as I know, every argument was a joke or a farce.

BTW i did provide you with some sources, i said bertrand russel, george carlin, etc. Its up their, just read it again.

 

[spnadmin]

chprakj ji

A million thanks for reminding us what the thread is about and how it started.

I had been planing to remind everyone to try to focus on the starter article a little more as the individual who posted it did present his views in a very personal way and probably was hoping for some replies that were personally connected to him.


Some fascinating concepts are being debated here. And they are related to the thread topic. But they are becoming more and more off to the edge of the thread topic.

Some parts of this discussion could even qualify as independent threads

 

[sikhway]

YOU were never a SIKH. You are either a Muslim or a christian.
Now that that is done let's move forward. HERE is your mastery of religions.

""Most other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but rather "this is what we believe"
Judaism, CHristianity and Islam are 100% HISTORY religions.
You seem to like 'scientific' facts as virgin birth, parting of the sea, production of bread form a sack, walking on water, horses flying to the sky, super baots 10000 years ago to load all of humanity and animals.

YOU know what? I am sorry that we are no match to you.
TO THE EDITORS:
*** are idiots like this doing on SPN.
ERASE his post or I am outta here for good.
Oh I am a SIKH.
An administrator in Canada.

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

YOU were never a SIKH. You are either a Muslim or a christian.
Now that that is done let's move forward. HERE is your mastery of religions.

""Most other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but rather "this is what we believe"
Judaism, CHristianity and Islam are 100% HISTORY religions.
You seem to like 'scientific' facts as virgin birth, parting of the sea, production of bread form a sack, walking on water, horses flying to the sky, super baots 10000 years ago to load all of humanity and animals.

YOU know what? I am sorry that we are no match to you.
TO THE EDITORS:
*** are idiots like this doing on SPN.
ERASE his post or I am outta here for good.
Oh I am a SIKH.
An administrator in Canada.

I am not a moderator or administrator, but I would like to point out that this article has gotten people thinking and talking and writing about Sikhi and what it means to them. That is one advantage of free expression. There are several Sikh forums that allow only those who agree with their administrators to post freely. SPN is different. If you want to leave and not come back that is your choice. I think it would be more valuable to both us and you, if you stayed around and expressed the views of a proper Sikh.

It's up to you though.


Think about it, dear sikhway ji.

 

[Prem]

I don't mind that people have doubts about Sikhi. It is good to discuss and think about these things.

My issue is when people discuss in bad faith, and I believe that the original poster is not a Sikh, and is either a Muslim pretending to be a Sikh, or a Sikh who has converted to Islam.

First of all, to suggest that from a sceptical, critical, rational perspective that Islam is more coherent and less fantastical than Sikhi is risible. Those Islamic history lectures you attended that so impressed you are like most 'dawah' (Islamic evangelism) - lies that white wash thr truth about Islamic imperialism, violence and hegemonic aspirations. Most Muslims don't even understand Arabic, and the Arabic is so arcane and riddled with nonsense that it is contradictory and to use a phrase coined by Christopher Hitchens, like a 'stone age penal manual'. Please google Ibn Warraq for more about this.

This is to say nothing about the white wash and sophistry used when Muslims evangelise on the subject of the prophet Mohammad.

Is you are a true sceptic, be sceptical about all religions. There is no lack of rational sceptical and atheist deconstructions of Christianity. It would be good to have more of these about Sikhi so that Sikhs can keep on their toes and inject vigour into Sikh belief in the 21st century.

But please don't come here as an apologist for Islam, its truly pathetic.

 

[Prem]

To the original poster, you forgot to include in your poll the option:

I am a Muslim pretending to be Sikh to carry out dawah (evangelism) for Islam

 

[spnadmin]

I don't mind that people have doubts about Sikhi. It is good to discuss and think about these things.

My issue is when people discuss in bad faith, and I believe that the original poster is not a Sikh, and is either a Muslim pretending to be a Sikh, or a Sikh who has converted to Islam.

First of all, to suggest that from a sceptical, critical, rational perspective that Islam is more coherent and less fantastical than Sikhi is risible. Those Islamic history lectures you attended that so impressed you are like most 'dawah' (Islamic evangelism) - lies that white wash thr truth about Islamic imperialism, violence and hegemonic aspirations. Most Muslims don't even understand Arabic, and the Arabic is so arcane and riddled with nonsense that it is contradictory and to use a phrase coined by Christopher Hitchens, like a 'stone age penal manual'. Please google Ibn Warraq for more about this.

This is to say nothing about the white wash and sophistry used when Muslims evangelise on the subject of the prophet Mohammad.

Is you are a true sceptic, be sceptical about all religions. There is no lack of rational sceptical and atheist deconstructions of Christianity. It would be good to have more of these about Sikhi so that Sikhs can keep on their toes and inject vigour into Sikh belief in the 21st century.

But please don't come here as an apologist for Islam, its truly pathetic.

It has all the classic features of a daw'ah, no more and no less, doesn't it Prem?

 

[Chaan Pardesi]

Dear Prem Ji, you hit the nail directly on the head.I totally agree with your conclusion and felt the same but held back, to see what this persona had to say about responses.I smelt the dawah RAT at once, but thought that some Sikhs would feel I am being over sensitive, if I brought that out there and then.

I hope the Administrators would not allow any further post from this person until he has clarified what has been asked of him, or he may choose to stay in his jahanaam, watching with envy the Sikh janaat, until his day of keyamat.

We should welcome people who question genuinely , but not those with nefarious agenda to undermine Sikh Principles.

To the original poster, I would say the following and welcome you to challenge that ...that Islam is all about absolute materialism,it has an intolerant doctrine; it is totalitarian and murderously militant; it demands total surrender of mind and body to an outdated rigid set of rules;no reformer of islam is tolerated by islamists ...scientifically in history it has been proven time and again repeatedly...that it's terror tactics and cruelty of utmost degree towards fellow humans are the HALLMARKS of Islam.

W.tfw,as a student of law and religion, you will have much to share on these issues and defend the islam you so deliquently studied,if I hear no response from you, I say you are nothing short of a FRAUD.

 

[ssahluwalia]

My Reply to thread “ashamed to be Sikh”
Dear Sir, your mother must be feeling very sorry for having given birth to you. You used very hurting heading for your message. Better you feel ashamed of writing this garbage. You were born and you believe that your father did father you. Why do you believe this? What is the proof? Did you try to find out scientifically? Did you test your DNA and did you match it with your father’s DNA to establish that your father is indeed your father. You must have felt very bad after reading all this. I am sure you are hurt.
Dear Sir there are thousands of things which could not be proved. Hindus believe that the Ram is a God. Muslims believe that their holly book came straight from the heaven. Just utter a word against them and they will teach you. It is only the great Sikhism which teaches us tolerance. We can tolerate the filthy dirt like you. Don’t you feel surprised that after all this stinking language you have used you are still alive? This is because Sikhs can tolerate people like you. Better you do not test again.
Mister, you cannot comment on our Gurus like this. You are lucky that you did not comment this in a public place. Dare you do this people will eat you up. We know many things are exaggerated. But it is with every religion.
I love Sikhism because: -
1. Hindus are Hindus today not because the God Ram saved them; it was the great sacrifices done by the great Sikhs and because of the great path sown by Shree GURU Gobind Jee that they were saved from conversions.
2. I have seen whenever there is celebration like Krishan Janamashtami in the Mandirs, boys tease girls. Many people go to the celebration sites only to enjoy. There are thefts every other day in the Mandirs. The poojaris give parshad after seeing the person and the donation. There is lot of chhoot (un-touch ability) over there. I am thankful to our great Gurus that the Gurudwaras are very safe for the Women. I along with my family occasionally go to Powta Sahib Gurudwara and take lunger. You can see the poor people with torn cloths, Hindus and sometimes Muslims seating in the same row and taking lunger. There is no partiality. There is no un-touchability. You can see the true sewadars serving with great pleasure on their faces. We feel very pleased there. We come back home entirely satisfied.
3. Gurudwaras do render lot of helps to everyone. There, you can get beds and utensils if you have some function at your place.
4. There are countless things people are benefited with. You cannot see all that?
5. The most important of all is that this religion does not teach hate for other communities. We believe in humanity.

There are countless things and no space is sufficient enough to mention all the goodness of the Sikhism. You are mentally blind if you are unable to see all these.

Shame on you. May Shree guru Gobind Singh Jee pardon you for your sins.

S.S.Ahluwalia
Dehradun

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

First of all my request to you and all other posters of the thread. Please address the person's name whom your post is directed to and who you are responding to about what. It will make things easier for other members who are participating in it by reading the posts. It becomes difficult for others because they have to go back and forth what was said by whom and when. Thanks.

Now coming back to your non response to my post:

My Question to you:
<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width=""> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> What is God for you and is the concept of God in other religions same as of Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi? If yes or no, can you please elaborate it from your view point? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Your response:

God is a great many things for me . But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc.

Ik Ong Kaar is not an entity like he/she/it is in Abrahamical religions and others including Hinduism. I thought you knew that because you claimed the following in one of your posts:

I have problems with the fundamental idea of god. I agree that the concept of god in sikhism is different then other religions. But the concept of god in general is something i have issues with. So thats a point where were both going to have to agree to disagree. Aside from the concept of god, is there anything else in the guru granth that hasnt already arose? And i have read the english translations of the jap ji sahib and parts of the guru granth. Im pretty well versed when it comes
to the abrahemic religions as well as other eastern philosophies

You continue:

I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity

First and foremost you can not challenge my conceptions of Ik Ong Kaar without sharing yours first because that is my original question to you as mentioned above. It does not work like that. it seems more a cop out when questioned rather than giving an honest answer. Once again you seem confused between different concepts of God in different religions and bundling them all together. I expected much more from you as you claim to have read many religions like the original poster with whom you identify with. I am still waiting for the response from him.

From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent lol.

Once again, the onus lies on you. If you claim Ik Ong Kaar to be the above, then it is your duty to share the concept that you have in your mind through your studies of Sikhi and other religions to further the discussion.

Let's go slowly. We all, no matter what hue,creed or faith (including AtheISM) we belong to, have all our lives to delve into learning. That is the true meaning of a Sikh, a student, a seeker, a learner. It bothers me not if you deny the fact that you are not a Sikh but yet you are and so is everybody else because learning is innate in all human beings.

After you have shared your concept then you can challenge mine when I share that Ik Ong Kaar IS.

After this we will go on your preconceived notion about reincarnation in Sikhi.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[ssahluwalia]

Who you are. What is your name ? What is your aim? you are hiding your real name?
Why you write this anti Sikh propaganda?



ssahluwalia ji
Please name the person you are talking too, as Tejwant Singh suggested. The thread is now so long it is impossible to know who is supposed to answer any one question.

 

[Seeker9]

Long story short: the bumblebee does not violate any laws of aerodynamics. A simple google search would reveal the fact that the concept you quoted is simply a myth. I'm going to start quoting another site that dealt with this issue:

Yes OK!

First n foremost, the onus is not on the scientific community to provide evidence against the concept of god.

Fine. And if the Scientific community chooses to doubt the existence of God, there is no onus on the believers to do that either

Simply put, if there is no evidence "for" the concept of god, then science can safely disregard it.

Sorry that's rubbish...that is far from Scientific method and empirical study. If you want to believe that go ahead but it is not a real scientific approach

If the onus was always on science, imagine how convuluted the process would be. Imagine if einstein came on the scene, simply said "e=mc^2, now prove me wrong yellingsardarni" lol, it would take a much longer time to prove anything then, progress would not be made

.

I was not talking about Scientists...I was talking about Atheists, a lot of whom don't understand Science but get on a bandwagon and quote it anyway or spend 30 seconds googling without any real research or learning

The onus is on the person making the claim, in this case you guys.

Well no, I turned it around remember. Atheists say God does not exist so by your own argument, the onus is on you to prove this! Just as Science can't prove God's existence, it cannot disprove God's existence either. If you want to add your own spin on things and make assumptions that's your choice....but other's don't have to accept that position

Otherwise i can similarily state "there is a teapot in interstellar space, somwhere between the earth and the moon, but it is too small to be seen by a telescope—now prove me wrong "

Yes you can. The point is facetious but it is nonetheless correct. Let me indulge you here and I will develop this further later. Teapots exist. Space exists. To prove with absolute certainty it is not there as I type this would require observation. All you can say for certain is that the probability is very high that the teapot does not exist. But like I said it's a silly example considering we are having a philosophical discussion about God.

. Do you really want to use an argument that can simultaneously justify the existance of sasquatch, the tooth fairy and santa claus? If so, by all means, i agree—god is exactly like those three.

Aside from the fact that there is some evidence that appears to support the existence of the Sasquatch, your point is completely meaningless. Think about what you are saying...you are equating ancient beliefs crossing time and geography with something you pluck straight out of your head! Oh look...I thought of a Flying Sphagetti Monster...either he exists or God doesn't exist. Oh look, ...I thought of an elephant with a giraffe's head and a donkey's feet...either it exists or God doesn't exist.

Very poor argument my friend...very poor indeed for someone as well read as yourself who likes to think things through logically

Having said that, without using science but instead using logic (logic is a formal language, not unlike math, that can be used to verify the validity of an argument... for example, the statement "the car is either blue or not blue" is always true as there is no possibility beyond what is covered by the scope of the sentance; where as the sentance "the car is red and not red" is always false because no such possibility can exist—u can use similar laws of logic (mainly, proof by contradiction) to determine that god either doesnt exist or exists but serves no purpose). I really dont want to get into this debate though on this thread, as this has little to do with the topic lol. Perhaps another thread if anyone is game?

Go for it!

God is a great many things for me . But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc. I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity

No please do elaborate so we know you have some sort of understanding that you are comfortable with even if it goes against what we think

From a biological point of view: i believe the concept of god is a evolutionary by-product that served a useful evolutionary purpose but just like the appendix, it has lost its use over time (and sometimes, just liek the appendix, it can do harm to us ).

It's an interesting concept. Not when I subscribe to

From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent lol.

No they are not. Anyone who says that has failed to understand Quantum Physics

From a common-sense point of view: the concept of god and religion in general (along with cults and conspiracy theorists) are ways in which people try to substitute actual knowledge with nonsense to make themselves feel smart... lol i could go on, onto the next topic.

Gibberish my friend.

I actually didnt know what she meant by liberation but thanks for the clarification. And no, atheists do not believe in souls, ghosts or other supernatural phenomena. THe purpose of life for an atheist is w/e they make it out to be. There is no wrong answer to that question as far as im concerned. Your purpose in life could range from promoting equal rights to getting drunk 24/7. Human life is objectively, from the point of view of a hypothetical god, meaningless; but from a subjective perspective, the meaning of human life is w/e you make it to be.

OK

As a side note, they say that biological immortality is only 30-50 years away.

Oh dear..that one made me laugh out loud. Let me see...need I give you examples of Scientific forecasts from the '50's, '60's, '70s etc that were patently absurd. You accuse us of blind faith but I would say you have blind faith in your religion of Science. And as Findingmyway Ji noted in a previous post, having herself studied scientifc subjects for her profession, there is no need to have one or the other...it's only Atheists that have that agenda

This poses a problem to many religions. What point does a heaven and hell serve, or reincarnation for that matter, if one can live forever if one wants to?

Pointless on this thread but a good debating point on another thread if you want to

Keep in mind, there are two naturally occuring examples of biological immortality (a certain type of jelly fish and an animal known as the hydra) both of those animals pose a fundamental problem to the idea of liberation and reincarnation. I'll be willing to go more indepth into biological immortality if one wants to bring up the topic with me. But as it stand right now, we've succeeded at increasing the lifespan of certain worms by 1000 percent its only 30-50 years away folks ].[/QUOTE

Rubbish! Until it happens it's rubbish. I could say we are only 100 years from human flight with genetically modified and grown wings....we'll all be like big flapping birds in the sky..whoopee!!

I look forward to seeing how sikhs will deal with biological immortality, is ur conviction in ur religion strong enough for you to reject the possibility of living forever?

Oh dear....you really don't understand Sikhi do you??? Why do you think the rewards of Sikhi are only harvested at death? Findingmyway Ji made this point earlier! Longer life is good...all the more time to do what we do now

Are there morals? Yes there are
Is there a moral code? No there is not
Morals are relative and change depending on context, culture, etc.
Atheists dont believe in absolute moral codes (or moral laws if u will). The only laws we believe in are the laws of logic, math and science. That is not to say that atheists have no morals. We do.
However, we believe one can have morals without a god-like figure to attribute the morals to. Im reminded of euthephro's dillemma

" are morals good by the grace of god? Or are morals good because they are intrinsically good?"

If you suggest that morals are good only because god says this moral is good. Then the morals are largely arbritary. Meaning, if god willed it: he could have made murder a good moral value. It all goes according to his will, and his will is rather arbritary.

No that wasn't the suggestion...just curious about your views on the mattter

If morals are good because there is something intrinsically good about them—And thats why god chose them. Then there exists something (in this case the intrinsically good nature of morals) that is above the will of god. God cannot make an intrinsically good moral a bad one by simply willing it then.

Why would God do that anyway?

Either which way, its a problem for the concept of god. Thats one of the reasons that we, as atheists, dont believe in god and why we believe morals are relative. Not to mention the fact that murder (the greatest sin, imo) can become totally justifiable depending on the context of the situation.

You need to elaborate further on this

Interestingly enough, their is branch of science that occasionally deals with morals (game theory ). According to game theory the best rule is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but rather

"Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do untoyou."

I would suggest reading "The rules of the game" by Carl Sagan. Its an interesting essay from an atheist regarding morals/gametheory and famous religious morals from christ to ghandi

Yes, I am familiar with game theory but it is tangenital to this thread as has been a lot of this discussion, which incidentally I have enjoyed immensely
rangesingh:

Most buddhist philosophies can be considered atheisitic imo. Seeing as buddhists dont believe in god right, yet they are vastly more spiritual on average then most every religious group (including sikhs). And they dont need a god to do it. So if they can do it, any atheist can—anybody, for that matter, can lol. I'm going to say buddhists are more similar to atheists/humanists in the general sense of the word then to sikhs prove me wrong

Nothing to prove...it's a matter of your interpretation and again tangenital to this thread

[

BTW i did provide you with some sources, i said bertrand russel, george carlin, etc. Its up their, just read it again.

You are mixing philosophy and religion but that's fine for an atheist

 

[karam]

Lol people have doubts about sikhi but they are okay with sunnat, fasts, huras in heaven, makks and rituals of hajj

 

[Seeker9]

Dear Caspian Ji

Another quick thought just flew by...

You said: the car is red and not red is not possible if invoking logic

Well, under Quantum Physics, in so far as the car exists the car is both red and not red

But someone as well read in Science as you would appreciate that anyway????

 

[Caspian]

Tejwant singh, my concept of god has been thoroughly explained in the thread 2+2=5 (or something like that). I'm pretty sure you were around in that conversation back when I initiated it. And it took me pages on end to explain my concept of god. I'm not re-explaining everything. The thread is their, take a look. If you want i can hunt down the thread and post the link. Having said that, i stand by my definition of your god. He is indeed an entity. Any god one "prays" too is a god of personal form. Which falls under the same categories as most other gods from other religions.

Incidently, (and one can knock on my interpretation if they want) but the whole "ik ong kar" thing in my opinion has less to do with the idea of monotheism and more to do with the universality of god. I think what guru nanak was trying to get at, is not the fact that there is only 1 god (otherwise he would have been more closely aligning himself with islamic scripture and thus alienating a large hindu population). But instead, he was suggesting, no matter who you pray to—bet it allah, ram, ganesh or flying spaghetti monster—its the same god. In this way, the many gods of hinduism and the world for that matter are unified (rather symbolically) to further push the idea of brotherhood amongst men. Thats just my 2 cents.

So its not "Ik ong kar" as in "monotheism is right and polytheism is rong"
Its "Ik ong kar" as in "no matter what you believe, monotheists or polytheists, you all believe the same thing."

Seeker9

The recent messages that do nothing except condemn the original poster for having even posted his thoughts only prove my earlier point. The vast majority of sikhs are close-minded. You, yourself, have proven not to be. But most people on this site cant get past the insult of a dissenting view point. Even if he was a muslim, his point is largely sound in my opinion. There should be a forum for dissenting views in sikhism—instead we get such priceless quotes like:

Dear Sir, your mother must be feeling very sorry for having given birth to you. You used very hurting heading for your message. Better you feel ashamed of writing this garbage.

A yo mama joke? Very classy imo

Mister, you cannot comment on our Gurus like this. You are lucky that you did not comment this in a public place. Dare you do this people will eat you up.

Thats a nice veiled threat wahkaur. The original poster didnt even comment on the gurus or the guru granth but rather the ridiculous stories. I wonder why so many sikhs consider these stories to be on the same level as the guru granth sahib in terms of validity. That they are not to be questioned at all surprises me.

Anyways, back to our discussion:

I was not talking about Scientists...I was talking about Atheists, a lot of whom don't understand Science but get on a bandwagon and quote it anyway or spend 30 seconds googling without any real research or learning

Lol, im not sure if this was a vieled insult in my direction for the bumblebee thing. Having said that, i find that a 30 second google search is alot more comprehensive then what the average religious person does to fact check their sources . And I agree that alot of atheists only have a superficial understanding of science. But on average they have a better understanding of science then do religious people. Atheists tend to be smarter, they commit less crimes then religious people, they are all around more moral then religious people. Countries with large atheistic populations (like sweden) fair far better then countries with large religious populations.

Well no, I turned it around remember. Atheists say God does not exist so by your own argument, the onus is on you to prove this! Just as Science can't prove God's existence, it cannot disprove God's existence either. If you want to add your own spin on things and make assumptions that's your choice....but other's don't have to accept that position

The only way the onus goes on us to disprove god is not if you "turned it around" lol. After all, who are you? Your a nobody (no offence, im a nobody too). You cant jus say "well i turned it around so from now on, the onus is removed from us, and its on u guys—good luck with that ." Thats not how it works. The person making the claim has the onus. The only way we get the onus of disproving god is if you somehow prove he exists. Then we'd have to examine ur proof (its called peer review). That is the scientific method.

All you can say for certain is that the probability is very high that the teapot does not exist. But like I said it's a silly example considering we are having a philosophical discussion about God.

Its actually a valid philosophical point that was originally furthered by bertrand russel (google search: russels teapot). But right, i love talking in terms of probability, i just assumed we were always talking in terms of probability. Although I have said "god does not exist" in the past, i acknowledge that from my point of view, there is an infinitly small chance that god does exist. So I can say there is a very high probability that god does not exist . Just as u said about my poor teapot.

Rubbish! Until it happens it's rubbish. I could say we are only 100 years from human flight with genetically modified and grown wings....we'll all be like big flapping birds in the sky..whoopee!!

Yes you can say that. Although sumone would look at your claim and think your crazy because there has been no research or evidence into your claim. So its a baseless claim. And one can look at my claim, realize that biological immortality is a very real and naturally occuring phenomena and that we have already succesfully modified the lifespan of certain organisms by thousands of percent and they can see why my claim makes more sense. Im not pulling this out of thin air. Keep in mind, science and technollogy has been progressing exponentially, not linearly. It only took us what? 50-60 years to get from the first plane to the first space shuttle right? These last 100 years have seen more change then the preceeding 1900 years before it combined. Its not a stretch to assume the next 100 years will see even more change

No they are not. Anyone who says that has failed to understand Quantum Physics

"[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Fynmen (a wellrespected american physicist).

Religious and spiritual people have come clamoring to quantum mechanics inorder to justify their beliefs. I wish you could honestly do it but you cant. I feel like you dont really have all that well an understanding of science. Only a few hours ago you believed that the bee should not be able to fly according to the principles of aerodynamics. And now you believe that religion is in line with quantum mechanics? Please explain how or why?

In any way. Quantum mechanics is not inherently "self contradictory." Instead, it contradicts the theory of relativity. Physicists are trying to work out how the two connect—if it all. They are also investigating other possibilities such as string theory


[/FONT]